The Progress of Man from Advanced Commentary to Sophomoric Opinion

January 30, 2007

Normally I wouldn't post about this, but this time I just can't help it. A friend of mine sent me a link to a video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5E3w7ME6Fs), in which a British lawyer tries to defend a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

.

Now, what I’m seeing in the clip is that the guy in question had a landlord, and that landlord says he was a nice guy.

.

He had friends and coworkers, too, and three of them say he was a nice guy. You know, he jokes around a lot.

.

He worked in a hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan. His job was to buy the food for the hospital.

.

Now, evidently, when we combine these facts with quotes from various sources about how we “got the wrong people,” and if we flash these quotes dramatically enough across the screen, we can convince a lot of people that this particular detainee – and by extension, all of the detainees at Gitmo – is innocent and is being held in contravention of international law.

.

Once we arrive at that lofty goal, we can then proceed to villainize the Bush administration and all Americans, by showing distorted and grainy images of the president, scowling during some news conference, and American soldiers escorting prisoners around the Gitmo compound.

Beautiful.

.

I don’t know why, but I really was disappointed to find that this is evidently the kind of junk that passes for evidence in the UK. I knew we were a lost cause here in the US, but I would have expected the British people to have more sense than that. See, here in our Sensationalist Nation, all that matters is how we feel about something. Our knee-jerk, over-emotional response is all the evidence we need. But it has become evident that the same is now true of the UK, which was a disappointing revelation for me.

.

I believe that the people being arrested around the world and detained in places like Abu Ghraib, Baghram and Guantanamo Bay are being arrested and held for a reason. That’s not to say that all are guilty; I can’t go that far. But they were put there because of a very real suspicion. And I’m not seeing anything in this video clip, or in the countless others like it that I’ve seen, that shows me otherwise.

.

I realize that these people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that’s not how it works in this case. Unfortunate? Absolutely. And are there people being held unjustly? Probably – almost definitely. But if a man is arrested in Peshawar and held for a year at Guantanamo Bay, you’re not going to convince me of his innocence by showing me how much his coworkers at the hospital in Pakistan liked him. What did Mohammad Atta do for a living? And could you find people who liked him, once upon a time?

.

This brings me back to the question of Buddhist practice versus support for violent action when necessary. While violence is always wrong, there will always be people willing to do violence against others, for a vast variety of reasons. And as long as this is true – as long as there are people who want to destroy my country, as long as they plan and plot and connive to kill my people by the thousands, by flying airliners into buildings or by whatever terrorist means, then it will be necessary to operate places like the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

.

Compassion, yes - but at what expense? Does being compassionate have to mean that we turn a blind eye to terrorism?

.

And I guess there will always be lawyers who try to “defend” these people by starring in their own little video productions and showing us that these terrorists once had jobs and neighbors.

.

.

Time for a BLUE UPDATE:

.

From my conversations on YouTube, it would appear that there are those who would assume that my dissent from the popluar view consititutes some kind of extreme right-wing fanaticism. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

.

I have absolutely no interest in seeing Adel Hamad, or anyone else, languish at Guantanamo Bay without at least some kind of fair hearing. And I do mean a FAIR hearing. But you must remember that fair also means fair to the government. It may be, for example, that some detainees at Guantanamo (and elsewhere) are known terrorists or known supporters of terrorist organizations, but would be released if they were granted an American-civilian-style trial. Lack of evidence, or whatever. This is only speculation on my part, mind you.

.

My point is that, after all this time and after all these horror stories, I still have a hard time believing that this guy Adel - an aid worker from the Sudan, who chose to work in Pakistan instead of the Sudan - and was working for an organization that had been identified by the UN as a financial front for Al Qaeda, juts happened to be standing around, minding his own business, when the Pakistani authorities arrested him, for nothing at all, and turned him over to the evil Americans, who are holding him in a big, evil concentration camp, without anyone ever suspecting, accusing or questioning him in connection with some kind of terrorist activities.

.

And watching a nine-minute video, in which is former "co-workers" describe him as a nice guy who joked and played ping-pong, isn't going to make me suddenly decide to stop questioning it.

.

And questioning the popular position that Adel Hamad should simply be released does not make anyone a right-wing extremist. It's not unreasonable to figure that, when someone was working for a known terrorist-supporting organization, thousands of miles from his own home, was arrested by a cooperating nation and has now spent years in prison, that guy MIGHT not be innocent - even if he is being held by the big, bad, evil and scary Bush adminstration, and even if he did once play a mean game of ping-pong.

January 26, 2007

Every Thursday or Friday, Smootchie slips a note into my lunchbox before I leave the house. The note contains her thoughts for her weekly Astros column. This week, Smootchie would like to explore the team’s recent signings, and why they’re such a great thing.

.

We’ve all heard about Adam Everett’s poor performance at the plate last year. According to Alyson Footer, he hit .239 with only six home runs in 2006. That’s pretty bad. But, he also posted a career-high 59 RBIs over 150 games, including 28 doubles. And here’s the really good part: Adam Everett recorded a .990 fielding percentage at shortstop, which ranks fourth all-time for a National League shortstop in a single season.

.

That pretty much makes him the best shortstop in the league – maybe in the game. This week, the Astros announced that Everett signed a one-year, $2.8 million contract. Smootchie says Uncle Drayton got a good deal.

.

“Good shortstops don’t come cheap,” she says. “The Fielding Bible called Adam the best shortstop in the pros, and called Jeter the worst, but we already knew all that. Yankees – ptooey! Anyway, Uncle Drayton got lucky with Adam signing at less than 3 million. This way, we know that nothing will get past the shortstop position this year, just like last year. And depending on how much playing time Biggio gets, the Astros should have a shot at leading the baseball universe in double plays. Again.”

.

Smootchie is also happy to see Big Mo keep his job on the number three bag, but she’s not sure what to think about the $4.35 million contract for a single season. “Ensberg is a fantastic third baseman, but just like Adam, he’s had his troubles at the plate. The difference is, he’s not the best in the game at his position. Good, sure – but not the best.

.

“We’d both like to see Mo return to his big slugger days, like in 2005 when he hit a .283 with 36 homeruns and 101 RBIs. But he posted a .963 fielding percentage in 2006, which is purdy darn good. So we’re glad to see him back, and we’ll be hollerin’, ‘Let’s go Mo’ for him again this year.”

.

The third returnee of the week is veteran backup man Jason Lane, who only played half of last season with the Astros – the other half he spent with our Triple-A team, the Round Rock Express. But he still knocked in 15 homeruns and 45 RBIs for the Astros in 112 games. And $1.05 million is a pretty reasonable price for that good a backup man.

.

.

Which brings me to probably the most refreshing thing I've ever heard a professional athlete say. You folks know, of course, that Brandon Backe is presently recovering from ligament replacement surgery, which is a fairly serious procedure and generally requires a year to a year-and-a-half recovery period.

.

Those of you who don't know Brandon, all I can say is go back and watch the footage of the 2005 World Series. If you're not impressed by his performance there, then I would say you might not be a baseball fan.

.

Anyway, he's going through that most terrible time for an athlete, especially a particularly competitive one, wherein all he can really do is throw the ball on a limited basis, and wait for the injury to heal. It's been four months since the surgery, so he knows he won't be pitching in 2007. But the team has retained him for this year with a $545,000 contract, and is watching his progress intently, with an eye toward putting him back on the mound in 2008.

"'Let's face it, I'm getting paid a lot of money to do nothing this year, except work to get back,' he said. 'I realize that. They didn't have to do that. I want to come back as fast as possible. I feel like I owe it to them.'"

.

So Galveston's own Brandon Backe gets Scruff & Smootchie's Right Attitude of the Year Award. There are a ton of professional athletes who could take a lesson from him.

January 24, 2007

While perusing the Editor's Blog on Tricycle - http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/ - I came across a story about the Buddhist view of certain aspects of sex, as compared with those of some other religions.

According to this story, which evidently originally came from a San Francisco newspaper, Buddhists believe that premarital sex is "morally acceptable in most cases," while homosexual orientation is specifically blessed.

Huh? Did I miss something?

Here's where junk like that comes from.

Often, Buddhism is seen here in the West as a religion of crystal-powered hippies and so on, and the Buddhist label is frequently used in connection with gay rights, environmental or other popular activist causes.

While gay rights and environmental issues are certainly valid, it is a mistake to believe that all Buddhists even have an opinion about them. Such common misperceptions are also an effective way to pigeonhole Western Buddhists, an excuse for non-Buddhists [who get their impressions of Buddhists and Buddhism by watching Dharma & Greg reruns] to apply yet another stereotype. It strikes me that in Asia, Buddhism represents nothing other than its intended purpose, and doesn't necessarily have a stance on any such political issues as homosexual ordination.

With this is mind, it is my honest opinion that the correct Buddhist view on questions like homosexuality and masturbation is no view at all, and the view on these other issues is this:

Avoid that which will cause suffering, for you or for others. If it will do harm to a person or a relationship, then it's wrong and you shouldn't do it. The Precepts remind us not to commit sexual misconduct.

It's just that simple. But in my opinion, to compare Buddhism with Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and other religous traditions is self-serving and counterproductive - especially if it's done by someone who evidently researched some San Francisco-specific brand of Buddhism that I've never seen before.

The cost for these half-day intensives is $20 per person. We'll be seated by 11am, and will go through to 3pm. Last month's retreat included sitting meditation, sleep meditation, walking meditation, and tea meditation. This month we'll focus more specifically on the tea meditation.

Now, I don't know where everybody stands on this, but I'm actually hearing a fair amount of support for it. I mean, obviously, there are reasons why a person would want to be rid of such a clearly offensive word.

The way it would work is, whenever someone hears another person say the word, he or she can contact the police, and the police can issue the offending speaker a citation to appear in court, just like a traffic ticket.

There's just one problem. See, some years ago, a group of guys with names like Jefferson and Adams made up this document, which became known as the Constitution of the United States. Now, this document is said to be the legal basis for all of the laws in this country. It's pretty much the document of highest authority in the land. And here's what that old document has to say about free speech:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

January 22, 2007

Much has been made of Lovie Smith and his Chicago Bears going to the Super Bowl. But every story, it seems, leads off with Smith's skin color.

.

Shouldn't a man's skin color be a side note, as opposed to the main story? Without diminishing in any way the accomplishment of being the first African-American NFL head coach to go to the Super Bowl, doesn't it demean his other accomplishments and his decades of hard work and struggle, to simply identify him as a Black man?

.

I think the story should be how strong a coach he is, and how, against mounting odds, he took his team to a 13-3 record in the regular season, one of the best records in the NFL (tied for second-best, if I'm not mistaken). Add to that the 39-14 trouncing they handed the New Orleans Saints in yesterday's NFC Championship Game, and you've got one hell of a coach, and one hell of a team. They'd have to be, wouldn't they, to get to the Super Bowl? In researching, I discovered that Lovie Smith led the Bears, back in his second year as head coach, to an astounding worst-to-first comeback, one of the greatest team comebacks in NFL history.

.

But all that is sidelined by the fact that he's Black. Huh?

.

Did I miss something?

.

I thought the whole idea of the Civil Rights Movement was the establishment of a colorblind society, wherein Black children and White children could play together without their parents worrying about their little minds being poisoned by racial division.

.

I thought we were supposed to judge people based on their character, or at least on their accomplishments - anything but race. I thought we weren't even supposed to notice racial differences any more.

.

So here's the question: When all anyone cares about in the sports world is the coach's skin color, have we effectively invalidated the Civil Rights Movement? Did Martin Luther King, Jr. march in vain? He preached his dream, but have we lived up to it?

.

Are we any more race-blind now than we were forty years ago? Or are just reinforcing the old, pre-Civil-Rights-Movement ideas about race?

.

Lovie Smith and Tony Dungee are probably two of the greatest of all time in their chosen profession, but when the first thing we're pointing out to our children is that they're Black, we're setting our society back about forty years. Let's stop being the Sensationalist Nation for the next thirteen days (until the game), and focus on what's important for a change.

January 18, 2007

“Don’t rest him too much,” Smootchie says, worried about not seeing Craig Biggio get as much playing time this year as last year. “Especially at home.”

This in response to Alyson Footer’s excellent story on Biggio’s probable rest in 2007. Unnecessary hype about Craig’s 3,000th hit aside, Smootchie points out that the Astros’ amazing second baseman, who’s going into his twentieth season – every year in an Astros uniform – is still a viable and dangerous double-play flipper.

“I know he’s like a hundred years old,” Smootchie jokes. “But seriously, we’re talking about a 41-year-old man who got 135 hits, including 21 homers and 62 RBIs last year. All I hear about is how low his batting average was in the last two months of the season, but he still averaged .246 for the year, even with the bad months.”

The up-side, according to Smootchie, is that it’ll be interesting to see what Mark Loretta looks like on the number two bag. “Turning that double-play ain’t easy,” she says. “If he’s got it, let’s let him play for Craig, but only sometimes. As long as Craig can play enough to maintain his game-to-game rhythm.”

.

Another issue is this so-called controversy about Adam Everett, and I'm going to have to weigh in on this one. I think Smootchie agrees, but this one's all me.

Adam MUST remain at shortstop, as our everyday starter. It's just that simple. I realize that there are problems with his bat, but people have got to realize that no team is going to have big sluggers in every position. Not the Cards, not the Braves, and not the Astros. Every team has at least one spot in the lineup - other than the pitcher - with a weak bat. What no other team has is the best shortstop in the game. No other team has Adam Everett.

.

If we were to - God forbid - give up Adam for a better-hitting but lesser-fielding stop, I think we'd feel the painful symptoms of BDS (Bad Decision Syndrome) immeditely. I'm already worried about that with the Willy Taveras trade, but that's another column.

.

One admin note: Smootchie would like to point out that it wasn’t she who misspelled Alyson Footer’s name in last week’s column. I guess that was me, so my apologies.